Follow-up Comment #3, bug #65403 (group groff):
[comment #2 comment #2:]
> [comment #1 comment #1:]
> > An unfortunate property of the "unicode" directive documented in
> > _groff_font_(5) is that it causes this test to always succeed.
>
> Be that as it may, the test for \[bu] also succeeds in devascii, despite
font/devascii/DESC not specifying the "unicode" directive,
> and no other files in font/devascii having "bu" in their "charset"
sections.
Right, because \[bu] is defined for that output device with `fchar`, in
tty.tmac.
When you query an ordinary or special character with, say, `.if c`, and you
get a "yes" answer, you don't know where the "defined character" comes from.
Might be a fully fledged character definition. Might be a fallback character.
Might be font-specific fallback character. Might come from a special font.
Might be a real glyph in the currently mounted font.
If that seems like a uselessly vague "yes" to you, see bug #64004.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65403>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
